CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions as to cinematograph entertainments.) (Hansard, 12 July 1932)

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley)
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House will remember that we inserted in the Bill during the Report stage a provision that one of the conditions attaching to licences for Sunday entertainment should be that no one was to be employed in a cinema on Sunday who had been employed on each of the six days previous to the Sunday, either in connection with similar entertainments or by the same employer. The effect of this Amendment is to give the employer who is charged with a breach of that condition, the defence that he had made due inquiry and that as a result he had reasonable ground for believing that the person in question had not been so employed. The consequence of the Amendment will be that if the employer charged with a breach of the provision is able to establish that defence, it will be held that no breach is involved, and he will not be subject to penalties. I think it is a fair provision that a man should not be held guilty of an offence, when he has taken all reasonable steps to avoid that offence.

§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
Speaking entirely on my own behalf, I regret this Amendment. When the Bill left the House, it was definite that one day's rest in seven for the employés was safeguarded. This Amendment practically destroys that provision. The hon. Gentleman opposite seems to be offended by that statement. What does the Amendment from another place say? that the last-mentioned employer had, after making due inquiry, reasonable ground for believing that he had not been so employed as aforesaid. 1254 What happened in connection with another Measure some years ago? A Bill was introduced to prevent the supply of alcoholic drinks to young persons under 18. Everybody thought when it became an Act that it would prevent such young persons being supplied with alcoholic drinks. But an Amendment was introduced to the effect that, provided that the person supplying the drink had reason to believe that the person to whom it was supplied was over 18, no charge could succeed against him in a court of law. The adoption of that Amendment practically killed the usefulness of that Measure. The acceptance of this Amendment means that the employer who is taken to court will be able to say that he had made all the inquiries he was capable of making and had not offended against the law at all. I feel sure that all the provisions made upstairs and on the Floor of this House in favour of one day's rest for those employed in the entertainment industry will be made almost null and void by the acceptance of the Amendment. I therefore register my protest on that score.

§ Sir BASIL PETO
When we were upstairs in Committee we were promised by the Home Secretary that as far as it was found to be administratively feasible the principle that there should be no seven days' work in the week was put into the Bill. It was not found that this could be done in a positive manner, and in the Bill we had a proviso which gave plenty of loopholes, I think, and now we are asked to put in further Amendments making still further provision for the thing being inoperative. I do not accuse the Government in any way of not carrying out the undertaking as far as they thought it could be carried out, but it is regrettable that at this last moment, when we thought we had inserted something which certainly left much to be desired, we are asked to put into the Bill still further provisions that if there is seven days' employment, provided the employer can satisfy the person who brings him to task for it, that he made such reasonable inquiries as he could, that he had some grounds at the time he gave the seventh days' employment to the workman to believe that he had not been employed on the previous six days, then no conviction would lie. We had very little before, arid of that little that we had received a part has been 1255 taken away. I agree thus far with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), that the real security against continuous employment for seven days in the week is so weak as to be almost negligible with this further Amendment. I very much regret that the Government have not stood firm on the provision that they put in, when, with all the assistance at their command, they put into the Bill what they thought was administratively possible, and that they are prepared to accept a still further watering down of that undertaking.

§ Mr. STANLEY
I beg to move, "That, this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps it would be a good thing if I said a word or so on this Amendment and the following one, because they go together. The result of the two is to make some provision for a state of affairs which has, oddly enough, only been disclosed to us since the Bill left this House. In Committee and on the Report stage the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) on several occasions held out to us the case of the Middlesex County Council as one of the shining protagonists of the Sunday closing of cinemas, but we have discovered that that Bayard among local authorities was not quite so much sans peur et sans reproche as he thought. In fact, so far from being averse to Sunday opening, they have permitted no fewer than 20 openings during the course of the year. We also found that other cities which had told us there was no desire whatsoever for the Sunday opening of cinemas in their localities have been on occasions granting permission to cinemas to open for specific charitable performances.
Although my own feeling—and that is why during the previous stages of the Bill I was not prepared to agree to any Amendment—is that authorities like that should choose on which side of the fence they are going to sit, whether they want Sunday opening or whether they are 1256 against it, yet it has been represented—and that, as I understand it, is why the other place has accepted these Amendments—that in a number of cases a few specific entertainments, in a number of which not only the profits but all the takings are given to local charities, will be prevented if a provision of this kind is not carried.
The effect of these provisions will be that any authority, which has during the period mentioned in the Bill granted these specific performances, will in future not come under the general provisions of the Bill and open regularly—unless they use the ordinary machinery of the Bill—but will be able to allow an occasional performance limited to not more than two Sundays in the year. That will cover the case of the charitable openings in the West Riding of Yorkshire, Middlesex, Birmingham, Nottingham and one or two other places, and it will probably meet with the general desire of the House that these few charitable performances should be safeguarded.

§ Sir B. PETO
I do not want to question the statement of the Home Secretary, but I feel bound to point out that when an Amendment was moved in another place to allow the opening of cinemas on Sundays for charitable purposes not in excess of 24 in a year, Viscount Hailsham, speaking on behalf of the Government, said that that arrangement, which was really a compromise, would be completely destroyed if this Amendment were carried.

§ Mr. STANLEY
The effect of that Amendment would be to allow every cinema in the area to open 24 Sundays in the year.

§ Sir B. PETO
I agree with the Under-Secretary that it is a different proposition to have the openings limited to two Sundays in the year from the proposition to enable cinemas to open in areas where there has been no public expression of opinion under the provision of the Bill on 24 Sundays in the year. I can see that there is a claim which could be put forward on behalf of that, but I am bound to point out that it goes counter to the whole principle on which the Bill is constructed, namely, that in the 97 areas where cinemas had been licensed and regularly opened the machinery of the 1257 Bill providing for the expression of public opinion has not to be put into force, while in the other areas it must be put into operation. Now we have an intermediate set of areas where there have been occasional openings on Sundays, which are also to be exempted from the machinery of the Bill. If this was the principle which the Government intended to accept, it is rather a pity that it should have been brought in at the eleventh hour. At the same time, I believe that there is a case to be made for it and I do not wish to oppose it.

§ Mr. LECKIE
I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to elucidate the last two lines of the proviso. Does it mean that a local authority will be able to choose different dates for different picture houses? Does it mean simply that there are only two Sundays for each area for all the picture houses in the area, or will the local authority be allowed to allow two Sundays to each cinema?

§ Mr. STANLEY
The local authority will have power to license any cinema in the area so long as that licence does not extend to more than two Sundays.